BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES

and

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD

Case No. 19

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:



2. As a consequence of the violations referred to above, Bridgeman R.D. Warford
 shall be allowed the remedy prescribed in Rule 33(i).
 FINDINGS:
 At the time of the events leading to this claim, the Claimant was employed by the
 Carrier as a bridgeman.
 By letter dated November 12, 2001, the Claimant was notified to attend a formal
 investigation and hearing to detennine his responsibility, if any, for allegedly failing to
 report for duty as assigned and for allegedly being absent without proper authority on
 November 7, 8, and 9, 2001. After several postponements, the investigation was
 conducted on March 1, 2002. As a result of the investigation, the Claimant was found to
 have violated Maintenance of Way General Rule J, and he was issued a suspension of
 sixty calendar days. The Organization thereafter filed a claim on the Claimant's behalf,
 challenging the Carrier's decision to suspend the Claimant. The Carrier denied the claim.
 The Carrier contends that the Claimant failed to fulfill his employment obligation

to the Cannier when he was absent without authority on November 7 and 8, 2001. The hearing record establishes that the Claimant was absent without permission and did not inform his supervisor until November 8, the second day that he was off, that lie would not be at work.
 The Carrier emphasizes that the Claimant acknowledged that the was aware of the proper instructions for calling in to work. Moreover, the Claimant previously had been counseled and disciplined concerning his non-compliance with the rules. The Carrier maintains that it is well documented that the Claimant has had prior instances in which he failed to properly follow the rules.
 The Carrier asserts that the discipline at issue is another attempt on its part to correct the Claimant's behavior, through progressive discipline. The Carrier argues that it is quite apparent from the record, and the Claimant's past work record, that the Claimant was fully aware that he is required to be at work. The Carrier points out that it has an obligation to impose discipline in cases where rules are violated and due process has been maintained. The Carrier maintains that considering the Claimant's work history, which includes five prior instances where he was absent without authority, a sixty-day suspension is appropriate.
The Organization contends that the Carrier failed to meet its burden of proof in that there is no support in the transcript for the Carrier's conclusion. The Organization

                                            PL-8 10043


                                            Rwd 19

emphasizes that there is no positive evidence in the record that supports the Carrier's finding that the Claimant acted in a manner that was inconsistent with the Carrier's philosophy. The Organization points out that none of the Carrier's witnesses could confirm that the Claimant had been absent without proper authority. The Organization argues that the transcript instead demonstrates that the Claimant did abide by the rules relating to absence from work. The Organization emphasizes that the Carrier failed to prove the charges leveled against the Claimant.
 The Organization goes on to assert that the Carrier violated the Claimant's due process right to a fair and impartial hearing. The Organization points out that Carrier Officer Meador preferred the charges against the Claimant, presided over the investigation, and assessed the discipline at issue. The Organization maintains that Meador's conduct during the hearing was not conducive to a fair and impartial hearing, and demonstrates that he had pre-judged the Claimant. The Organization therefore asserts that the disciplinary suspension should be rescinded.
 The Oruanization then argues that the discipline at issue was arbitrary, capricious, and should not be allowed to stand. The record shows that the Claimant should not have been charged with any offense, and he should not have been suspended in this instance. The Carrier failed to show any intent by the Claimant to disregard or otherwise avoid Rule J. The Organization therefore asserts that the Carrier's decision to discipline the Claimant should be overturned.

                          3

                                                PCB 1,9043 flwd ~9

The Organization additionally contends that the Claimant provided medical documentation for his absence, and there is no dispute that the Claimant was ill on the two days he was absent. The Organization argues that the Claimant had a justifiable reason to be absent, and it emphasizes that the Board routinely has held that discipline is inappropriate when an employee has a justifiable reason for being absent.
 The Organization ultimately contends that the claim should be sustained in its entirety.
 The parties being unable to resolve their dispute, this matter came before this Board.
 This Board has reviewed the procedural arguments raised by the Organization, and we find them to be without merit.
 This Board has reviewed the evidence and testimony in this case, and we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding that the Claimant was guilty of failing to report for duty as assigned and for being absent without proper authority on November 7, 8, and 9, 2001. flte record is clear that the Claimant did not have permission to be off and he admitted that he was not at work on those dates.
 Once this Board has determined that thcrr i; sufficient evidence in the record to support the guilty finding, we next turn Our .attention to the type of discipline imposed. This Board will not set aside a Carrier's impo.ttion of discipline unless we find its actions to have been unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.

                          4

The Claimant in this case had previously been disciplined on several occasions for being absent without permission, having received a one-day suspension, a three-clay suspension, and a five-clay suspension for attendance-related violations in 1998. Apparently, the previous disciplinary actions failed to have the effect of encouraging the Claimant to conform his bchavior to the rules. Consequently, this Board cannot find that the sixty-day suspension issued to the Claimant for this unauthorized absence in 2001 was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. We find that it was proper progressive discipline. Therefore, the claim will be denied. AWARD:
The claim is denied.

 O A ~IZATION R
DATED:
PETER R. ERS
 Neu ~ral Mem er
C RIER MEMBER
DATED: Z <<~ ~

TLS 6043 A Wd I q